The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment is a Constitutional Amendment proposed in July 2003 by US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to repeal the nativist clause prohibiting foreign-born individuals from holding the office of President or Vice President of the United States. Hatch's amendment would allow anyone who has been a US citizen for twenty years to seek these offices. In the wake of the California recall election of 2003, this proposal is widely seen as an attempt to make California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger eligible for the presidency. The text of the amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President , is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

Section 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

IMHO for the highest office in the land we want someone who is absolutely loyal to the US. Someone who was born here and grew up here, is more likely to meet that requirement. There are plenty of citizens who were born here to choose from. Why expand it to others? Being the president is not a right. Not everyone can be the president.

The requirement has been in the constitution since it was written. Lets leave it there.

This is the chief conductor of foreign policy. A natural-born citizen is less likely to sell us out to the United Nations or some similar international outfit.

I don't think that this is too much of a concern. Our natural-born Presidents have in some cases done worse.

Quote

IMHO for the highest office in the land we want someone who is absolutely loyal to the US. Someone who was born here and grew up here, is more likely to meet that requirement. There are plenty of citizens who were born here to choose from. Why expand it to others?

I'm against it. There are plenty naturally born US citizens within the US to run for President. We don't need to whore out our country to some foreign born candidate just because he's an actor or has billions of dollars.

I'm against it. There are plenty naturally born US citizens within the US to run for President.

That argument does not appear to be logically valid. By analogy, someone in the nineteenth century could have argued that there were plenty of males to run for office, and that females should therefore be excluded.

One group should not be prevented from running simply because there are a lot of people in another group.

There are plenty naturally born US citizens within the US to run for President.

This would be like me saying that there are plenty of males to vote so we don't need to give women the right to vote. The point of giving equal rights to naturalized citizens is not to have more people available to run, but to give them equal rights.

Quote

We don't need to whore out our country to some foreign born candidate just because he's an actor or has billions of dollars.

There are plenty of reasons why Arnold shouldn't be president. His nationality should not be one of them.

IMHO for the highest office in the land we want someone who is absolutely loyal to the US. Someone who was born here and grew up here, is more likely to meet that requirement. There are plenty of citizens who were born here to choose from. Why expand it to others? Being the president is not a right. Not everyone can be the president.

The requirement has been in the constitution since it was written. Lets leave it there.

Most of the time Sen. Hatch and I agree on nothing. This is not an exception. Why should we even want a foreign-born president? I'd honestly feel much more comfortable with a naturally born citizen.

There are plenty naturally born US citizens within the US to run for President.

This would be like me saying that there are plenty of males to vote so we don't need to give women the right to vote. The point of giving equal rights to naturalized citizens is not to have more people available to run, but to give them equal rights.

No, not really. We are talking about national leadership. It's not like we are running low on people who have the ability to be our leader (though we are running low on candidates worth being our leader lately). By that, we do not need to whore ourselves out to non-native born citizens for elections. And this has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with national security. Any plan that is brought up to change that fact should be struck down instantly.

It's not like we are running low on people who have the ability to be our leader (though we are running low on candidates worth being our leader lately).

Once again, this is not a valid argument. It's like saying, it's not like we are running low on white Christian males who have the ability to be our leader, so no one else should qualify. The number of people available is absolutely irrelevant.

Quote

And this has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with national security.

That argument is a rather difficult one to make. Why would a natural-born citizen be more likely to maintain national security than, say, someone who became a citizen at the age of one?

The argument that naturalized citizens are somehow less likely to owe allegiance to the United States is, I'm sorry to say, entirely unconvincing.

It's not like we are running low on people who have the ability to be our leader (though we are running low on candidates worth being our leader lately).

Once again, this is not a valid argument. It's like saying, it's not like we are running low on white Christian males who have the ability to be our leader, so no one else should qualify. The number of people available is absolutely irrelevant.

No, it's not. They are two different things. There is a reason why our laws require the leader of the nation to be one born from this nation, just as there is a reason why they have to be a certain age too. It is to protect the integrity and sovereignty of our country. Now, if for some reason all of our adults were to die suddenly, leaving only kids behind, then the law would have to be changed to either lower the age limit or to open it up to foreign born adults to become our leader.

Quote

Quote

And this has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with national security.

That argument is a rather difficult one to make. Why would a natural-born citizen be more likely to maintain national security than, say, someone who became a citizen at the age of one?

The argument that naturalized citizens are somehow less likely to owe allegiance to the United States is, I'm sorry to say, entirely unconvincing.

Yet you assume that everyone who becomes a naturalized citizen might not have other motives. Let's say for example a 19-year-old covert PLO operative moved to the US and became naturalized, and then when old enough ran and became President? Do you not think that he would have any plans towards changing our support for Isreal? Or what about a German immigrant following WWI moving to the US to become President during WWII? These are the things you have to think about, and why changing the law to allow this kind of risk to occur is a very very bad idea.

Yet you assume that everyone who becomes a naturalized citizen might not have other motives. Let's say for example a 19-year-old covert PLO operative moved to the US and became naturalized, and then when old enough ran and became President?

The probability of that occurring is most likely about the same as the probability of a natural-born citizen betraying the U.S. This might be especially likely, using your logic, for natural-born children of immigrants.